Smart Car of America Forum banner

81 - 100 of 135 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
Father-in-law

I'd reply, "What if YOU get hit by a truck??"
I often use my in fated father-in-law when the question or statement about big trucks come up....

He was driving a large 1976 tank of an American made car..... at an intersection he was hit by a bigger tank... actually a 'tanker'....

Seat Belt or no seat belt, air bag or otherwise, Tridion or weaker unibody construction.... the outcome would be equal....

My father in law was indeed killed

I guess it is sort of gross to do so but it certainly lines up the perpective quickly

Then I switch to the more happy things I love about life and my smart :)

Cheers
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
272 Posts
The best thing we could do is get a "nanny state" government that forced, regulated, and cajoled these people into buying safe, small, fuel-efficient cars rather than gas-guzzling, polluting, ill-handling SUVs.
Apparently you haven't been watching the news:

New CAFE Rules Will Create Social Engineering--Good. - BusinessWeek

But this is absolutely the wrong approach. You cannot increase demand for small vehicles by increasing supply of small vehicles. The only way to increase demand for small vehicles is to increase the cost to buy/run big vehicles (as we have seen recently with high gas prices).

If we want people to be "cajoled" into small cars, we have to significantly increase gas guzzler taxes, taxes on fuel, etc.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
272 Posts
In the hands of a competent driver, all those 50s and 60s cars are indeed safe.
Only when compared to cars from the 30s and 40s.

Given drivers of equal skill, modern cars will always be safer. Steering, braking, suspensions, tires, etc. have all been continually improved since the 1960s...not to mention safety glass, seat belts, soft interior panels, impact absorbing bumpers, crumple zones, collapsible steering columns, airbags, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,285 Posts
I worried about rot in my first car; a 1930 Plymouth sedan with wooden spokes. Drove all winter on the same 4" wide summer tires because we never heard of 'snow tires' until many years later. Never did feel 'unsafe' either.
Only one accident in my lifetime; in a blizzard while driving a 1949 Ford station wagon through an intersection. Couldn't see that 18 wheeler that hit me broadside! Six of us survived being ejected from the spinning wreck; both halves of it! No seatbelts in those days. Probably a good thing.
I feel extremely comfortable driving my Smart anywhere at any speed. I do use the seat belt though.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
629 Posts
Only when compared to cars from the 30s and 40s.
Nope.

Given drivers of equal skill, modern cars will always be safer.
Untrue.

Steering, braking, suspensions, tires, etc. have all been continually improved since the 1960s...not to mention safety glass, seat belts, soft interior panels, impact absorbing bumpers, crumple zones, collapsible steering columns, airbags, etc.
Steering remains unchanged; it's all recirculating ball or rack and pinion.
Braking remains as drum and disk.
Suspension remains as it has since cars were first mass produced.
Safety glass was invented in 1903 and came into automotive use by WWI.
Seatbelts have been around since the mid 1800s.
Soft interior panels have been around since the 20s.
Impact absorbing bumpers have existed since the 40s.
Crumple zones have been around since the 60s.
Collapsible steering columns were invented in 1940, and have been installed in Mercedes for decades, and in U.S. cars since the 60s.
Airbags are crap and give a false sense of security to people who believe they're safer having a shotgun pointed at their chest.

Every single thing you've listed has been around virtually as long as there have been automobiles. The argument that today's cars are for some unknown reason safer than cars from the 50s and 60s is a pantload. There is certainly a perception by some that 'modern' cars are somehow safer, but that's totally unfounded - and it's precisely because of your imaginary scenario: that there are "drivers of equal skill" out there.

There aren't.

Today's vehicles cater to people who cannot drive well and are driven (pardon the pun) by the litigious nature of today's society. A society that refuses to take responsibility for their own actions, and would rather sue someone rather than sticking a hot coffee cup between their ginormous thighs and then being surprised when they get burned by it.

Yesterday's cars catered to those that took pride in their skills as an automobilist.

Your pal,
Meat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
mmmeat,

Your understanding of automotive engineering is seriously lacking -- as is your ability to interpret simple statistics. Even though cars have consistently gotten smaller and the roads ever-more-crowded, deaths per miles driven has continued to decline for decades. If today's drivers are not unskilled compared to those of yesteryear and the cars are less safe because they are smaller (your claims), why is the death rate lower?

It's attributable to improvements in cars. Modern cars stop in a far shorter distance. A 1965 Pontiac GTO took 197 feet to stop from 60mph (Source: Popular Mechanics magazine test). According to edmunds.com, the smart fortwo performs the same braking in 124 feet.

They corner with a force that was unheard of in the 50s and 60s. Suspensions are no longer based on leaf springs inherited from horse and buggy days. Unsprung mass in suspension systems has plummeted as has body roll.

Despite your claims to the contrary, airbags have saved thousands of lives and drastically reduced injuries for thousands of others -- and the insurance industry and the NHTSA have the statistics to prove it. Seatbelts are no longer non-existent or lap-belt only designs. Cars no longer have bench seats with no headrests that allow the neck to snap backwards in an accident. Steering columns in ALL CARS now collapse to prevent severe chest injuries. Dashboards are are not the sheet metal affairs that hacked people to ribbons in the 50's and 60's.

You also seem incapable of understanding the difference between something being invented and it being improved or in widespread use. While seatbelts may have been invented in the 1800s, they bore no resemblance to modern three-point belts with inertial reels and it was not until 1958 that any auto manufacturer made them a standard feature (Saab). If you crash your 1955 Ford with no seatbelts, the fact that someone invented them decades earlier is of no value to you.

You also ignore advances like traction control, electronic stability programs, and anti-lock brakes and the effect those have on safety. But, I guess we'll all get some lecture from you about how you're such a skilled driver that you can have one wheel on ice, two in water, and one in dry pavement and outbrake and outperform a driver with electronics systems like those mentioned.

As to my motorcycling skills, I've been riding for over 30 years in some of the worst traffic in the country (Washington DC metro area). You'd not survive a year here on a motorcycle.

Since you sneer at people who swerve to avoid striking other vehicles, children, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc., I sure hope you don't drive near any of us or our families.

By the way, are you an actual ignorant Ugly American or do you just play one on the Internet?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
mmmeat,

Your understanding of automotive engineering is seriously lacking -- as is your ability to interpret simple statistics. Even though cars have consistently gotten smaller and the roads ever-more-crowded, deaths per miles driven has continued to decline for decades. If today's drivers are not unskilled compared to those of yesteryear and the cars are less safe because they are smaller (your claims), why is the death rate lower?

It's attributable to improvements in cars. Modern cars stop in a far shorter distance. A 1965 Pontiac GTO took 197 feet to stop from 60mph (Source: Popular Mechanics magazine test). According to edmunds.com, the smart fortwo performs the same braking in 124 feet.

They corner with a force that was unheard of in the 50s and 60s. Suspensions are no longer based on leaf springs inherited from horse and buggy days. Unsprung mass in suspension systems has plummeted as has body roll.

Despite your claims to the contrary, airbags have saved thousands of lives and drastically reduced injuries for thousands of others -- and the insurance industry and the NHTSA have the statistics to prove it. Seatbelts are no longer non-existent or lap-belt only designs. Cars no longer have bench seats with no headrests that allow the neck to snap backwards in an accident. Steering columns in ALL CARS now collapse to prevent severe chest injuries. Dashboards are are not the sheet metal affairs that hacked people to ribbons in the 50's and 60's.

You also seem incapable of understanding the difference between something being invented and it being improved or in widespread use. While seatbelts may have been invented in the 1800s, they bore no resemblance to modern three-point belts with inertial reels and it was not until 1958 that any auto manufacturer made them a standard feature (Saab). If you crash your 1955 Ford with no seatbelts, the fact that someone invented them decades earlier is of no value to you.

You also ignore advances like traction control, electronic stability programs, and anti-lock brakes and the effect those have on safety. But, I guess we'll all get some lecture from you about how you're such a skilled driver that you can have one wheel on ice, two in water, and one in dry pavement and outbrake and outperform a driver with electronics systems like those mentioned.

As to my motorcycling skills, I've been riding for over 30 years in some of the worst traffic in the country (Washington DC metro area). You'd not survive a year here on a motorcycle.

Since you sneer at people who swerve to avoid striking other vehicles, children, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc., I sure hope you don't drive near any of us or our families.

By the way, are you an actual ignorant Ugly American or do you just play one on the Internet?

I had something to say, but I think I'll wait for the applause to die out first!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
629 Posts
mmmeat,

Your understanding of automotive engineering is seriously lacking -- as is your ability to interpret simple statistics.
Naah. I know quite a bit more about automotive engineering than you ever will.

And - since I didn't mention anything about statistics or interpreted any of these nonexistent statistics you mention - I'm disinclined to believe your review of my abilities in that area.

In other words, I completely reject your assertion.

Even though cars have consistently gotten smaller and the roads ever-more-crowded, deaths per miles driven has continued to decline for decades.
Interesting. As there are more miles of roads created every year, I again reject your silliness; there are more roads for more cars. Duh.

If today's drivers are not unskilled compared to those of yesteryear and the cars are less safe because they are smaller (your claims), why is the death rate lower?
err ... 'not unskilled' is the wrong argument, and I made no such hypothesis.

It's attributable to improvements in cars. Modern cars stop in a far shorter distance. A 1965 Pontiac GTO took 197 feet to stop from 60mph (Source: Popular Mechanics magazine test). According to edmunds.com, the smart fortwo performs the same braking in 124 feet.
a 2008 Peterbilt pulling it's max gross weight stops in 560 feet from 60. What's your point? That you can take dissimilar vehicles and say that one that's newer stops in less distance than one made in 1965? Who cares? One weighs more.

A 1965 VW bug can stop in 126 feet. With drum brakes. And skinny tires. And no ABS. Your 'argument' shows just how little things have changed in 40 years; in all that time, stopping distances between similar wieght vehicles has only improved 2 feet ... and that doesn't take into account the Smart's ABS system, which will cause the vehicle to stop in a greater distance than the Bug. Goooood argument there, fmaxwell. Boy, you sure showed me.:rolleyes:

They corner with a force that was unheard of in the 50s and 60s. Suspensions are no longer based on leaf springs inherited from horse and buggy days. Unsprung mass in suspension systems has plummeted as has body roll.
A 1963 289 Cobra can corner with a lateral force of 1.2Gs. So can a 2008 Corvette.

Many vehicles still use leaf springs, and leaf springs were standard equipment on vehicles right up until 1990.

Again, your argument fails.

Despite your claims to the contrary, airbags have saved thousands of lives
I made no such claim. Therefore, your argument is dismissed.

You also seem incapable of understanding
Since you're the one stating that I've said things that I didn't, making claims about vehicles that are not comparable, and creating imaginary arguments that you're the only one privy to ... I believe you've directed that comment toward the wrong half of this conversation.

You also ignore advances
Nope.

As to my motorcycling skills, I've been riding for over 30 years in some of the worst traffic in the country (Washington DC metro area).
I've been riding bikes in Los Angeles - the #1 city for the worst traffic in the U.S. - for 30 years ... and you're the one having accidents. I don't care about your motorcycling skills, just don't ride near me.

Since you sneer at people who swerve to avoid striking other vehicles, children, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.
Where did I write that?

I do notice that you didn't quote anything I said when you responded to me. That is because you're not arguing against anything I've said, you're arguing over what you want me to have said. Because of that, it's very easy to dismiss your post as just another baseless attack. And this part of your post:

By the way, are you an actual ignorant Ugly American or do you just play one on the Internet?
Confirms that.

I understand that you're angry because I'm smarter than you. I get that all the time. To save space on the threads from further goofiness and to keep the mods from having to do more work deleting your flames, I invite you to PM me directly so that I can marginalize you properly.

Your pal,
Meat.
 

·
Dont Feed The Trolls ^Mod
Joined
·
5,933 Posts
Man... this kind of thing only happens on the internet. I think I would pay $$$ to see you guys debate in real live.... oh well, back on topic. The smart IS safe!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
629 Posts
Man... this kind of thing only happens on the internet. I think I would pay $$$ to see you guys debate in real live.... oh well, back on topic. The smart IS safe!
How much ya got? :D

Are we talking separate tables, charts and references or cage match?

Your pal,
Meat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
I understand that you're angry because I'm smarter than you. I get that all the time.
That was the funniest part of the entire post! Those of us who design, build, test, and launch satellites are so angry about how smart you screenwriters are. You just keep telling yourself that! :D

Regarding your laughable assertion that the roads are not significantly more crowded, since 1960, miles driven in the U.S. has gone up by a factor of four (2 billion per day to over 8 billion today). In that same time, the number of miles of highway has gone up by only 15% from 3,545,693 in 1960 to 4,016,741 in 2006 (source: U.S. Department of Transportation).

As to the rest of your post, I'll let it fail on its own.

I won't waste my time with people who make statements and then deny having made them. Or who who will not site sources to support their claims. Nor do I feel like spending my time explaining simple things, like why shorter stopping distances and better cornering reduce accidents and why modern seat belts and airbags reduce injuries and death. If you're going to make goofy, unfounded assertions and analogies ("Airbags are crap and give a false sense of security to people who believe they're safer having a shotgun pointed at their chest."), you have proven yourself capable of making yourself look silly without my help.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
Man... this kind of thing only happens on the internet. I think I would pay $$$ to see you guys debate in real live.... oh well, back on topic. The smart IS safe!
I'd love to debate, but I don't know if meat is up for a real debate where you have to cite sources and statistics to support your claims.

Didn't meat convince you that the smart is unsafe? We should all be driving cars that take about 200 feet to stop from 60mph, that have lap belts or no belts at all (like the cars of the 50s and 60s), no airbags, and that have steel dashboards with little to no padding.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
272 Posts
Every single thing you've listed has been around virtually as long as there have been automobiles.
So, let me get this straight...your assertion is that there have been no advancements in automobile safety since the inception of the automobile that can be attributed to reduced injuries and/or deaths? Or was there (in your opinion) a point in the last 100+ years that automotive safety reached a plateau?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
629 Posts
Regarding your laughable assertion that the roads are not significantly more crowded,
I made no such assertion.

since 1960, miles driven in the U.S. has gone up by a factor of four (2 billion per day to over 8 billion today).
That doesn't mean roads are more crowded.

In that same time, the number of miles of highway has gone up by only 15% from 3,545,693 in 1960 to 4,016,741 in 2006 (source: U.S. Department of Transportation).
...aaaaand that doesn't mean that roads are more crowded, either.

I'm always entertained by how people like to misinterpret data to prove their point. For example, in 1965 the 405 freeway in California was 72 miles long. In 2006 (to go by your dating system) it's still 72 miles long.

However, in 1964 it was 4 lanes wide. Today, it's 10 lanes wide. And in a few years, it'll be 12 lanes wide. So, effectively, it's now more than twice the road it was in 1965, and it'll soon be three times the road it was then. Hence, there's far more road on that 405 than there was in 1965. Your statistic doesn't report that, DA, and that's why your argument fails. Well, there are quite a few more reasons, but that's an easy example.

I digress. I didn't make the assertion that you claim I did, and your example is flawed because you're misinterpreting the data either intentionally or because you don't understand it. Either way, you've completely missed whatever target it was you were aiming for.

I won't waste my time with people who make statements and then deny having made them.
Given that logic ... since you responded to my post, I obviously didn't fall into that category.

Game. Set. Match. Winner: Meat. Again.

In the future, you can probably help yourself out by not writing angry, and not putting words in other people's mouths. Just a suggestion. And, like the recommendation that I made that you PM me rather than clutter up threads by demonstrating your silliness, I will bet that that suggestions falls on deaf ears and blind eyes.

Your pal,
Meat.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
629 Posts
So, let me get this straight...your assertion is that there have been no advancements in automobile safety since the inception of the automobile that can be attributed to reduced injuries and/or deaths?
Did I say that?

Or was there (in your opinion) a point in the last 100+ years that automotive safety reached a plateau?
Did I say that?

Not sure where you're getting whatever it is you're trying to 'get straight' but I post as 'mmmeat.'

Your pal,
meat.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
272 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Smithee
So, let me get this straight...your assertion is that there have been no advancements in automobile safety since the inception of the automobile that can be attributed to reduced injuries and/or deaths?


Did I say that?
Yeah, you did. See here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Smithee
Given drivers of equal skill, modern cars will always be safer.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
I made no such assertion.


That doesn't mean roads are more crowded.


. For example, in 1965 the 405 freeway in California was 72 miles long. In 2006 (to go by your dating system) it's still 72 miles long.

However, in 1964 it was 4 lanes wide. Today, it's 10 lanes wide.

Which means: in 1964 it would have counted as 288 miles of highway in DOT stats and in 2006 it would have counted as 720 miles of highway.

Yes the roads are more crowded today and no rational argument can be made to the contrary.

Irrational argument is still possible, however, as demonstrated by many folks online...
 
81 - 100 of 135 Posts
Top